74

THE  A  B  C  OF  TAXATION

this  instance  for  the  landowners.  This  may  be  an
extreme  illustration,  but  it  goes  to  show  the  viciousness ­
  of  the  present  system,  and  points  unerringly  to  the
sufficiency  of  ground  rents  for  all  purposes  of  taxation.
Few  persons  now  call  in  question  the  right  of  the
owner  of  any  Washington  Street  lot  to  tear  down
his  building  and  hold  his  lot  vacant.  If  one  owner
may  do  this  all  owners  may  do  the  same.  Must
there  not  be  some  fatal  weakness  in  an  apportionment
between  the  rights  of  individuals  and  the  rights  of
the  people  that  would  make  possible  such  an  impolitic
condition?  But  the  fact  that  modern  buildings  would
be  worth  $50  to  $75  per  square  foot  instead  of  $13.50,
the  value  of  present  buildings,  is  proof  that  most  of
this  land,  though  not  held  entirely  vacant,  is  held
practically  three-quarters  to  nine-tenths  vacant,  or,
in  other  words,  put  only  to  one-quarter  or  one-tenth
of  its  legitimate  and  most  economical  use.  A  public
economy  that  turns  a  landowner  from  a  public  friend
into  a  public  enemy,  whether  he  will  or  no,  cannot
be  wise.
If  Boston  should  take  the  $4,383  received  for  taxes
from  the  marble  Sears  Building  on  Washington  Street,
and  the  $7,465  from  the  Ames  Building,  and  spend
these  amounts  in  the  improvement  and  repair  of  the
worthless  buildings  of  Washington  Street,  the  owners
of  the  Sears  and  Ames  Buildings  would  complain,  and
very  justly.  Exactly  what  the  City  of  Boston  does
is  this:  It  spends  these  same  taxes  in  the  “improvement ­
  and  repair”  of  the  land  value  that  is  under
these  and  similar  buildings.  But  is  this  really  less
unjust?  This  is  one  more  way  of  looking  at  the  unequal
incidence  of  a  tax  on  buildings.